Songpi: Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi is facing intense scrutiny over its handling of a sexual harassment complaint filed by 11 women students against a senior faculty member who is also a sitting Member of Parliament. The faculty member has been identified in reports by OpIndia, NewsBharati, HinduPost and other outlets as Prof. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, 57, who teaches at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems and represents Inner Manipur for the Indian National Congress. The complaints were reportedly submitted to the university’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in May 2026, but nearly four months later, the inquiry is yet to be concluded, raising questions about institutional timelines and independence. The issue has now moved beyond campus politics to a national debate.
According to detailed reports published by Hindustan Times, which first broke the story with university sources, the complaints stem from viva examinations conducted in the first week of May 2026. As per the HT report, one student alleged that during her viva, the professor made inappropriate remarks with sexual connotations. The report further states that in the second week of May, the student shared her experience in an unofficial WhatsApp group comprising only students. That account, according to sources quoted by HT and Asianet Newsable, prompted several other women students to come forward with similar experiences. Following those discussions, a formal written complaint was submitted to the ICC later in May, marking the beginning of a formal process.
What Are The Allegations?
The nature of the allegations, as described in the complaints reported by media, includes three main claims that are now part of the ICC file. First, that the professor allegedly made lewd and sexually coloured remarks during regular classroom sessions and viva examinations, creating an uncomfortable environment for women students. Second, that he allegedly summoned students for meetings and gatherings at his on-campus residence where inappropriate behaviour allegedly occurred, which is seen as a misuse of the teacher-student power dynamic. Third, and most serious, that during the viva examinations he allegedly made remarks suggesting he would award higher or extra marks if students accepted his sexual advances. All of these are allegations made in the complaint to the ICC and remain unproven at this stage.
No charge sheet, FIR, or final inquiry report has been made public so far, and the legal status remains that of an internal university complaint under investigation. The JNU administration has not issued an official public statement about the specifics of the case, which is standard in ICC matters to protect confidentiality. Hindustan Times noted in its reports that the university administration did not respond to queries sent seeking comment on the matter. Similarly, HT reported that it reached out to the professor for comment but did not receive a response by the time of going to press. No police case has been reported to have been filed with Delhi Police in this matter so far, as the case is currently within the university’s internal redressal mechanism.
The procedural handling of the case has become the central point of controversy and the reason for the current protests. As per JNU’s ICC guidelines, which are framed under the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students) Regulations, 2015, an inquiry is supposed to be completed within 90 days from the receipt of the complaint, with the inquiry report to be submitted within 10 days of completion of inquiry. If the complaints were indeed received in May, as reported, the 90-day deadline would have ended in August. This timeline is mandated to ensure swift justice and to avoid prolonged mental harassment for both complainants and respondent.
Hindustan Times sources said the ICC did begin its proceedings soon after the complaint was filed in May and called several students to record their statements, which indicates that the process was initiated. However, the university then went into a roughly 45-day semester break, which paused academic activity and may have affected the continuity of the inquiry. When students returned in mid-July as classes resumed for the monsoon semester, discussions surrounding the complaint resurfaced on campus, with students asking about the status. Since then, there has been no official communication from the JNU administration about the status of the inquiry, leading to speculation and unrest among student groups who feel the process has stalled.
Why The Four-Month Delay Matters and ABVP Protest
The issue gained wider public and political traction on September 9, when the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) held a protest at JNU, raising slogans and demanding timely completion of the inquiry. The ABVP questioned why the complaints, reportedly filed in May, remain unresolved even after four months, well beyond the mandated 90-day timeline prescribed by UGC. The student organisation also questioned the alleged silence of the Congress party, its student wing NSUI, and Left student organisations at JNU, given that the accused professor is a sitting Congress MP from Inner Manipur. The protest brought the case from an internal campus grievance to a matter of national political debate, especially given the sensitivities around Manipur and the dual role of the accused as both teacher and lawmaker.
Prof. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam is a known academic and public intellectual from Manipur who has written extensively on social and political issues of the Northeast. Before entering active electoral politics, he was a long-serving and popular faculty member at JNU, known for his classes on social systems. According to NewsBharati and public records, he joined the Indian National Congress only a few months prior to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and secured his candidature through the AICC Central Election Committee. He went on to win the Inner Manipur seat, becoming a first-time MP with a significant margin. His background as both a professor of social systems and a parliamentarian has made the allegations particularly sensitive, with commentators noting the inherent power differential between a faculty member who also holds political office and students who depend on him for academic evaluation.
The case raises broader questions about how universities in India handle complaints against powerful, well-connected or politically influential individuals. The ICC is a quasi-judicial body mandated to be independent and to provide a safe, confidential, and time-bound redressal mechanism for complainants, without fear of retaliation. As per The Tribune and UGC guidelines, in such inquiries both the complainants and the respondent are given an opportunity to present their version, present witnesses, submit evidence, and cross-examine through the committee. The committee is also expected to gather information from relevant persons, including alumnae and other faculty if needed. The core principle is that the process must be impartial and must protect both the complainants from victimisation and the accused from a trial by media or mob justice.
Fair Process For Both Sides Needed
Legal experts and women’s rights activists point out that a delay in concluding an ICC inquiry can have serious and lasting consequences for both sides, which is why timelines are strictly prescribed. For complainants, a prolonged inquiry can cause immense distress, anxiety, academic disruption, and a feeling of institutional apathy, leading to loss of faith in the system meant to protect them. For the accused, an unresolved allegation that remains in public domain for months without a finding can cause irreparable damage to reputation, career, and public life, especially if the allegation ultimately proves to be false or unsubstantiated after a full inquiry. This is precisely why UGC regulations prescribe a strict 90-day limit and why transparency about the process is essential.
The political dimension has also been highlighted and debated vigorously on social media and news channels. Because Prof. Akoijam is a sitting MP of the opposition Congress party, various student groups have accused each other of politicising the issue for ideological gain. ABVP has alleged that Congress and Left groups are silent because of ideological considerations and political compulsions, while Left groups have argued that ABVP is using the issue to target a Congress MP. There has been no official statement yet from the Congress party, NSUI, or Left student organisations like AISA or SFI on the specific ICC case as of September 12, which has further fuelled the controversy. Meanwhile, social media discussions have seen strong reactions from both sides, with some demanding immediate suspension and others demanding due process.
It is important to reiterate the current legal and factual status for responsible reporting. The allegations of sexual harassment, including claims of offering higher marks in exchange for sexual favours, are as per the complaints filed by students and as reported by media outlets like Hindustan Times, The Tribune, OpIndia and NewsBharati. They remain allegations and have not been established as facts by the ICC or any court of law. No final report, recommendation for disciplinary action, or clean chit has been issued by JNU so far. The matter remains sub judice within the university’s internal system. Reporting on sexual harassment cases requires careful balance to avoid both victim-blaming and prejudging the accused, and to maintain the principle of presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.
For now, the demands from a cross-section of JNU students, including women students, are procedural rather than punitive in nature. They want JNU to publicly clarify without revealing identities: when exactly the complaints were received, what steps have been taken since May, why the 90-day timeline was not met, when the inquiry report will be submitted, and what interim measures have been taken to ensure the safety of complainants and the academic interests of all students involved. Transparency in process, without revealing identities of complainants or confidential testimonies, is what institutional accountability would require under UGC norms. Going forward, if allegations are found false after a thorough and fair inquiry, Prof. Akoijam deserves a fair process to clear his name; if substantiated, appropriate action must follow.
